W ran against 2 BUFFOONS, akin to running against Joe Biden twice. Jonah gets it wrong again. The Republican Party has been running AWAY from conservatism since GHWB.
Bush was more than just Compassionate Conservatism.
Whatever it was, he won twice.
It’s him, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower.
Nixon won in 1968 because RFK was murdered and Wallace took the southern democrat vote.
There’s a graphic I’ve seen on a post here I’d like to find that showed percentage of Republican Presidential candidate with minority votes. Bush got more than any other before or after (except maybe Reagan, I can’t remember).
The demographic trend is not necessarily downward, it was up with Bush. McCain and Romney lost it.
Bush ran as more conservative than both Romney and McCain.
His compassionate conservatism was that private charities do better to serve the poor and needy than government hand outs.
And, as far as the hispanic vote, there were two things: 1) he was from Texas and had been governor. Many of that demographic knew him and 2) he spoke spanish a little bit.
Who does one like more? Bush or Romney? Or McCain?
It’s not rocket science.
Wanted amnesty, No Teacher Left Behind, auto bailouts, TARP, urban housing, Medicare Plan D, TSA, DHS, 2002 Farm Bill, etc. etc.
Yet GWB and “compassionate conservatism” broke the GOP brand because, at its core, it lacked both a coherent set of policies and sufficient energy to defend the policies that GWB adopted. Like a college frat party gone wrong, the Bush II administration left a shambles in its wake.
Rather than adapting democrat model of pretend 'compassion' in exchange for votes why not make the case for good old American self sufficiency and individual industry to improve our lives?
Have we surrendered that basic value forever?
What makes the Democrats successful?
The ability to of Gov’t to consistently spend well beyond its means via things such as robbing social security taxes to pay for present spending, and especially the FED money printing to cover $1 trillion deficits.
Promoting conservative values and winning elections will always be at a disadvantage to that. Sometimes big, sometimes small - but we will see the “welfare state” continue to grow while this situation is in place.
Only when that situation changes, then you will see the politics of the USA change drastically as well.
A more telling point, is that true "compassion" avoids having a Federal Bureaucracy muck up social interaction in America. There is nothing remotely "compassionate" about what Obama has been doing. We need to do a better job pointing that out to everyone. (See Obama Or America.)
William Flax
For years I’ve had an explanation for both Reagan’s and W’s winning Hispanic votes in the 40% range, and it has nothing to do with compassionate conservatism.
Both Reagan and W were popular governors from one of the two states with the highest Hispanic populations. There is no reason to think that both did not receive some Hispanic votes that were favorite son votes. That’s most likely where their vote in the 40% range rather than the 30% range came from. Why wouldn’t some Hispanics cast favorite son votes like any other group?
Plus, particularly with Reagan, there were fewer recent arrivals amount the Hispanic population, and even with
W to some extent. Reagan’s elections were 38 abd 42 years ago; W’s 12 and 8 years ago. There are defintely more recent arrivals and illegals in the US now than in those years.
And I don’t think GHWB was ever considered that much of a Texan, and not a favorite son of Texas to the extent W was.
I believe a favorite son vote is the main reason Reagan and W did better among Hispanics.
“compassionate conservatism.”
Fancy words for secialism, crush it!!!!
Compassionate conservatism???? Hell Bush wanted to open our borders even AFTER 9/11. He was willing to roll over for social programs that had no business being passed. He vetoed nothing in the way of spending bills. He put us on the road to bankruptcy and dim control of the senate and the WH.
what a joke. go back to the drawing board Jonah
Amazing how “compassionate” you can be with other peoples’ money.